On Sat, Nov 6, 2010 at 12:39 PM, Thomas Dalton <thomas.dal...@gmail.com> wrote: > On 5 November 2010 17:02, David Gerard <dger...@gmail.com> wrote: >> ... and compromise content, as TV Tropes found out: >> >> http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Administrivia/TheSituation?from=Main.TheGoogleIncident > > That's not a problem with adverts. It's merely an incompatibility > between Google's policies and the site. If we fell victim to the same > policies, we could just choose another advertiser to work with > (although, in reality, Google would bend over backwards to get their > adverts on our sites and would relax their policies).
I'm sure they'd be willing to work out a deal where people can opt-in to Wikipedia ads (which wouldn't be subject to the anti-porn rules). I doubt they'd allow non-opt-in ads on [[tit torture]], though. Alternatively, Wikipedia could put ads only on stable revisions which contain SFG content. Which I suppose could be argued to put some pressure on Wikipedians to make articles SFG. But then, *any* manner of fundraising is going to be affected by these sorts of things. Surely there are people who wouldn't donate to Wikipedia if they knew about the [[tit torture]] article, but would (or do) donate if/because they don't. _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
